On January 12-13, 2001, the National
Professional Paintball League held organizational meetings to determine
the structure of the league, and how it would progress through the 2001
season and on into the future.

Regardless of who the attendees officially
represented, members of all NPPL pro teams except for Rage and Lockout
were present.

When the NPPL was founded by member
teams who were disappointed with the quality of tournaments provided by
the then leading promoters, it was a player owned league. Teams which
competed in the league owned stock in the corporation, and even received
dividend checks from budget surplus at the end of the season. Events
were produced by promoters who had to bid to the league for the right to
do so. The promoters were held accountable to put on a quality event,
properly using the league’s rules and judging. Should a promoter
fail to produce an acceptable event, they would not receive a sanction
to produce a future event. This held the promoters accountable to
the players.

Unfortunately, the NPPL board of directors,
member teams, and officers failed to continue the steps needed to run the
organization. For the past several years, control and accountability
drifted into the hands of the event promoters. Some promoters went
so far as to make rule changes on their own (game lengths, pre-game warning
times, and even use of various trigger modes), and were not reprimanded
by the league. In the 2000 season, while the league showed continual
growth and was taking strides forward, the NPPL events took some of their
heaviest criticisms to date, and many players began voicing concerns that
the promoters were not being held accountable for their events. Safety
concerns, site layout, overall look of and presentation of the sites, prize
package sizes, and even profit levels were drawn into question.

Before the tournament promoters entered
the meeting room, league representatives and other interested parties held
open discussion about the league itself. It was noted by NPPL President
Tom Cole, while he believed that Scottie Flint’s intentions were not hostile
toward the league, his attorney had advised that a legal situation existed
in which the league could not hold an official meeting with Flint present
without jeopardizing important rights.

Cole then allowed Flint to address the
room, prior to the meeting start.

Scottie Flint explained that not only
had the league officers and boards failed to run the NPPL as it was designed
to operate, but in fact, due to unpaid taxes, the corporation of the National
Professional Paintball League had been dissolved by the New York State
Department of Taxation and Finance in August of 1999.

Tom Cole then explained that while the
board of directors had not met and other boards of the league had failed
to meet over the past years, the NPPL Rules Committee continued to function,
and took the mantle of leadership, making decisions that would otherwise
be made by the board of directors. Cole stated that he was advised
by his attorney that while no longer incorporated, the NPPL was still a
valid entity as a private company.

Scottie Flint also explained, that out
of concern for the future of the NPPL, he had registered a national trademark
on the name NPPL, in the hopes of protecting it from hostile parties.
Showing that this was in good faith, he signed ownership of that name over
to the NPPL rules committee so that ownership will belong the league.

With that issue settled, the promoters
– concerned that they would be dealing with whichever party owned the name
NPPL (the valuable commodity to them – the right to say their tournaments
are NPPL events) entered the room, and the meeting began.

New faces amongst the promoters were
Richmond Italia and Ed Poorman. At a World Cup 2000 meeting, the
rules committee decided that having the 4th event (Nashville that year)
produced jointly by DYE and Bad Boyz Toyz, who produced other events was
not in the best interest of the league. Italia and Poorman stepped
in to produce the 4th event.

Cole distributed meeting agendas to
all in the room. The agendas had been prepared by Lane Wright, and
consisted mainly of a schedule laid out by Scottie Flint. It listed
important issues the league needed to address. Additional items Wright
placed on the agenda were possible inclusion of the NPPL tournaments in
the World Paintball Series (WPS) and a financial disclosure by Jerry Braun.

In the first day of meeting, final decisions
were not made. Rather, topics were discussed openly, and ideas brainstormed
in the interest of developing new ideas and determining what common ground
existed between the league and event promoters.

While Braun made it clear that opening
his books was not something he intended to do again, and many present commented
that it was something not necessary then, he stated that recent criticisms
of the World Cup had left many with the impression that running such a
large bring your own paint event was highly profitable. His goal
was to show what money was made or not made, so that the league would understand
that some things they may wish the promoters to provide at events might
be prohibitively expensive.

The Income and Expense statement listed
event revenue and expenses which brought about a net profit of $130,350.
Out of that money, $62,250 was used for capital improvements (hard goods
such as netting poles, and other items that will be put to used at future
at World Cup events). This left a final profit of $68,100 which Braun
then put toward (but does not completely cover) the budgets for Ground
Zero, Ground Zero Gold, and Ground Zero Silver. Other promoters commented
that their tournaments which were smaller, brought in smaller profits,
or not necessarily any cash profit – the main benefit being promotion and
advertising of their own companies, as well as continuation of a league
in which their own pro teams could play.

In most of the other issues, the general
concept was that the league needed to be very specific with what it required
of the promoters. The promoters would then be able to negotiate what
was attainable, and then fulfil their obligation to the league. Some
important points that surfaced during the discussion were a review of netting
standards presented by Larry Cossio. A major problem with paintball
netting in the past has been that there have been no standards – no definitions
of what tests the netting must pass, how tall it must be, or how it must
be secured. Thus claims that an event’s netting have not been “up
to standard” have not been valid in the past. The National Paintball
Association will be making these standards a requirement for all of the
NPA insured fields and events. As the NPA typically insures 80 percent
of the NPPL tournaments it would be sensible for the league to adopt similar
standards.

Another key point in equipment standards
brought forward by Bill Gardner is that at a recent ASTM meeting, a letter
was presented from the American Medical Association stating that paintguns
which were “mode capable” of firepower greater than “semi-automatic” were
a threat to the health and safety of the public. The reasoning behind
the letter is that with accidental, and even intentional eye injuries caused
by a person, the likelihood of a double-eye injury (total blindness) was
much less with semi-auto than with burst, full auto, and other enhanced
trigger modes. Whether the risk is realistic or not, the political
weight pulled by the AMA is immense, and Gardner suggested that the NPPL
be a leader, rather than a follower in the move to only allow paintguns
manufactured with semi-auto only boards (i.e. existing paintguns with multiple
firing modes, even if they could be locked out, would require a new circuit
board that is programmed to only offer semi-automatic firing.) One
potential model discussed for how this could be implemented involved allowing
only original equipment manufacturer semi-only boards. If it was
later discovered that the manufacturer had a hidden method of changing
modes, that manufacturer’s products would be banned from the league for
a period of two years.

Laurent discussed possible inclusion
of the NPPL tournaments in the World Paintball Series. This would
mainly be a matter of working out the details of rules compatibility with
European tournaments (most of which use rule books based on the NPPL rules),
and point values for finishes in NPPL events. Performance at NPPL
events would then provide points for ranking in the World Paintball Series.
This would provide an incentive for more US teams to compete in European
tournaments, and for more European teams to compete in the US.

The meeting moved with lively discussion
of topics, and with most subjects, general agreement was achieved.
The topic that became hotly discussed was just what the structure of the
NPPL would be. On the league side, the idea was that the structure
move back to how it was originally designed. Promoters would bid
to the league for the right to produce an event, and the bidder which offered
the most benefit to the league and players would receive NPPL sanction
for their event. The promoters found this model unacceptable.
They were concerned that after picking up the ball that the league had
dropped, and building the NPPL circuit, they could produce an event meeting
all the requirements laid out by the league, and still get dumped in favor
of a producer with little to no track record, but with promises of grandeur.
Tom Cole had researched team attendance via score archives at WARPIG.com,
and prepared summary graphs showing the continued growth in NPPL events
in 1998, 1999, and 2000 – growth as much as 20% per year in some cases.
The promoters then used this chart to back their claim of having built
and grown the league largely on their efforts. “Tell me what to do
and I’ll do it,” said Dave Youngblood “but don’t punish me after I’ve done
what I was asked.” After some of the most heated discussions of the
day, the meeting was adjourned with the goal of meeting to set plans the
next morning.

Prior to the Saturday meeting, the promoters
met privately, and developed a plan, while the rules committee met privately,
and voted Paul Adler to a temporary position of “Amateur Team Vice
President” to give the team members of the APC a direct voice.

As the promoters came to the table,
Jerry Braun dropped a bombshell. The promoters had agreed to jointly
form a corporation which would produce and promote all of their events.
This provided them with several key advantages. They would no longer
be in competition with each other, but in cooperation. It was in
the best benefit of all of the promoters to use their specific skills and
expertise to make sure that all of the NPPL events were as successful as
possible, not just their own individual tournaments.

While the league still maintained the
ability to pull the NPPL sanction from the promoters, doing so now has
greater consequences – it means that 5 tournaments get pulled, not just
one, and new promoters would need to be found to maintain the league.
At the same time, the promoters still have to answer to the league, and
meet the league’s standards for each event. In two words – bargaining
power.

The joint ownership of the events also
meant that rotation of teams judging the event no longer depended on team
and event ownership. Judge selection could now be effectively done
by the league rather than the promoters.

Issues brought up the second day included
the addition of new events and promoters. The promoters stood firm,
that they would be the only promoters, but would be open to producing events
on behalf of other major sponsors who’s name could appear on the event.
Their concern cited was that the league would be judged on the quality
of all events in the series, and if a new promoter came in and produced
a bad event, they would suffer. While no plans were made yet for
a 6th event, negotiation was very positive toward adding a pair of 5 man
only events to the series. The leading location under consideration
for one of the 5 man events was the island of Aruba, which is eager to
host a major paintball tournament.

Then came the came the topic to end
all topics – licensing of the NPPL name. The league wanted the right
to license the NPPL name for promotion, advertising, and fund-raising,
while the promoters wanted control. Various models were considered,
with possibilities like outside sponsorship funding negotiated by the promoters
going 80% to the promoters and 20% to the league, but if it was brought
in by the league, 20% would go to the sponsors and 80% to the league.
After various possibilities were discussed, and some conclusions reached,
it was time for lunch break.

Both groups returned from lunch, the
league representatives having met minutes before the return. Tom
Cole said that the league would deal with individual promoters, and not
a consortium, and left the table. Members of the rules committee
stayed and talked to promoters, and some promoters followed Cole into the
hallway to talk to him. After a few minutes, all parties returned,
and discussions again resumed. Ultimately, it was learned that the
big hitch in licensing schemes was that the league wanted the rights to
produce and sell NPPL hats, t-shirts and jerseys as a way to raise funding
to handle costs of properly administrating the league. Both sides
of the table had different views of what name licensing had meant, and
neither had a problem with the promoters licensing the name for use with
outside sponsors (with a percentage going to the league) while the league
raised internal funding through the sale of NPPL clothing.

Ultimately it was decided that portions
of funding would flow from the promoters to the league in various manners,
to make sure cost is not a hindrance in the league fulfilling its goals.
The league will indeed be the sanctioning body. It has the power
to determine what tournaments are NPPL tournaments, it has the power do
decide what the rules are to be used at NPPL tournaments. The tournament
promoters must submit site plans to the league prior to the event, and
the league will have the power to require changes. Also discussed
but not solidified was the possibility of the promoters putting up a security
deposit prior to each event. Items not critical enough to pull the
NPPL sanction away, but till important to the success of the league, would
be enforced by percentages of the deposit not being returned if they were
not fulfilled. Clearly visible barrel bag type safety devices will
be required in the 2001 season (a number of methods for distribution are
still being discussed). At some point during the season, ID cards
will be required, and a team and player tracking database put into effect.
At some point, probably during the 2001 season, paintguns which are “mode
capable” of enhanced, burst, and full auto firing modes will not be permitted.
Exact methods for this transition are still being discussed, as practicality
of achieving this goal, is critical.

Also discussed as a future possibility
was a restructure of the pro system. Many seemed in favor of not
charging entry fees to pro teams, and providing only trophies as prizes,
the pro teams would then win “contingency sponsorships.” An example
given was that Smart Parts could offer a $5,000 contingency sponsorship
to a pro team that won using Shockers. That way the prize money spent
by the contingency sponsors would only be spent when it directly promoted
their products. Also discussed was the future possibility of limiting
to 16 pro teams, and granting each team a franchise – the ability to sell
the right to be pro. Top amateur teams, instead of “going pro” would
have their players classified as pro. The players would then need
to switch to a pro team, or the team would have to replace a pro team that
decided to leave (the bottom 4 pro teams would be charged an annual service
charge, as an encouragement for them to leave to make room for upcoming
teams). The other alternative for an amateur team who’s players had
gone pro would be to purchase the pro franchise from an existing pro team.
This would build into the model seen in other professional sports.

The rules committee also made the following
rules changes, which will be in effect at the Los Angeles Open 2001:

All players will be chronographed on to
the field shooting 300 fps or less. Judges will use hand held chronographs
to check velocity during the game. Any playing firing 310 fps or
higher during the game will be eliminated.

Barrel Bags (a sturdy bag over the muzzle,
secured to the paintgun by a lanyard) will be required on all paintguns
in areas where goggles are not required.

NPPL Player ID Cards will be required at
all times on the field.

If a player is in an area where goggles
are not required, and has a paintgun without a barrel bag, his or her NPPL
Player ID Card will be impounded, and not returned until a $10 fine is
paid.

While much was achieved, much still needs
to be done. The agreements between the promoters and league need
to be solidified in writing, which will probably involve some back and
forth negotiation of fine details and wording. The 2001 NPPL season
is planned to consist of 5 main tournaments. Los Angeles, Chicago,
and World Cup will remain at the same locations as 2000. Pittsburgh
may be at a different venue in the same region, or the same location as
2000. The 4th event is not yet defined, though Las Vegas (new location
in that area), and Montreal are being considered as possibilities.
There are also hopes of two additional 5 man only tournaments, one in Aruba
likely in September, and one at a yet undecided location. Not all
dates have been finalized, check the Tournament section of WARPIG for the
latest event scheduling information.